People who are in favour of grammar schools....

[BertrandRussell]

....what is your proposal for the majority who are not selected?

As I've said before, we have a secondary modern and a grammar school --which take most of the area's kids- about a mile apart. The secondary modern has 36% FSM and 4% statemented. The grammar has, to its credit, increased its FSM cohort- from 0 to 5%. It has no statemented children at all.

"The schools they go to are not 'perfect' but they are paradises of calm and tranquility compared to most 'state' schools."

Of course they are. They don't allow difficult to educate or manage children through the gate. That means that these children are over represented in schools like the ones my two boys - who are not disruptive - attend. Is that fair? Why shouldn't these children be shared fairly across all settings? Why are your children more deserving of a peaceful learning environment than mine?

Would you make a case that GP's surgeries should do this too? That we should have special GP surgeries with really good doctors ONLY for those patients who are easy to treat, who are intrinsically healthy and who look after themselves? The ones who respond well to health advice?

And maybe we could have a 'second tier' service - different GP's surgeries for 'difficult to treat' patients. You know, the ones who complain and who ask for antibiotics every time they come to the doctors, and are snippy with the receptionist?

It would be SO much nicer to have a GP's surgery where I didn't have to sit next to someone who smells, and who monopolises the doctor for too long.

And I think the government should organise this for me and my family, regardless of how it affects other people.

Or is that selfish and entitled?

And the really frustrating thing is that in comprehensives and in secondary moderns it is the lower ability kids who have to deal with most of the disruption anyway. Top set type children tend to get the best of anything regardless of school type.

Which brings me back to my original question.

Bertrand - you must know that these are the children of people who keep coal in their baths. It would be a waste of time and money educating them - they are destined for the workhouse anyway.

Two of the boys who showed us around GS open evening were from a really tough estate. For them, GS had been a life changer. It was not the GS 'fault' that their local comp was failing. We need decent comps and GS, working together. There's a place for both. We need great schools for all to attend.

The comps we can't get into have a huge price tag in the surrounding area. Those boys didn't have a chance to get in there, but GS afforded them an opportunity that the comp did not. An exception, maybe, but boys from disadvantaged do still exist in grammars. Not enough, you will argue, but those lives are still being changed.

If we truly care about and support ALL children - from SEN to high achievers - then yes, there should be all kinds of schools to cater for all needs and not deny any group the opportunity.

Utlimately, parents do do what's best for their own kids, whether their child has additional needs or whether their child has sporting, musical or academic tendancies, they may try to find a place for that child and be focussed on that single child. Why can't the average parent of an academic and 'geeky' pupil try to secure them a place at a specialist school that fits them best?

Polls are historically misleading - as we know, people say one thing and vote another. My background is working class and we always aspired to GS and nobody begrudged us that dream. At GS open evenings I've seen all socio-economic groups there in search of that dream. They may not end up there, but the aspiration is there. Don't be fooled that this is some m/c dream only. It's certainly not in Birmingham.

As PP said it's about more than results, ir's about a whole ethos and if my local comp provided that then of course I would go. But we're priced out, which is an issue in itself. GS is a lifeline for many (rightly or wrongly) and I'm nodding with you emphatically 2Striped, because we are in a similar situation and I'm trying to grasp grammar with both hands, for if we don't get in then not sure where we will be.

So for us, Utopia is a mixture of great comps and grammars without hefty price tags. I don't see why we couldn't have both in that idealistic place.

Nobody is denying that Grammars are not good for the few that go - the point is that they are detrimental to those that don't. The lucky few plucked from the tough estate will be outnumbered by many more whose life chances will be not be enhanced by "failing" at age 11.

"The comps we can't get into"

What about if good and over subscribed comprehensive schools used lottery systems or fair banding to get around the issue of expensive catchments?

The bottom line is that comprehensives need to have provision for children who are extremely able because they will always HAVE children like this. In other words there will be children who are bright enough to cope in grammars who choose (or are placed by parents, or who don't perform well at 11+) to go to a comprehensive. And if there is provision for the brightest in comprehensives then there isn't a need to grammars except for social selection.

I agree that putting a working class child in an elite institution is probably going to have a big impact on them - peer group is hugely influential at secondary, as is having daily, visible proof that you are cleverer than other kids. Does wonders for a child's self image. But that isn't a good enough argument for creating a system that prioritises the advancement of the few over the educational wellbeing of the many

Recent YouGov / Times Survey 13-14 Sept showed that:

only a quarter of people thought that the government should get rid of grammar schools.

only 25% thought academically able children from poorer families would do better in a comprehensive system.

I have been to 2 secondary school open evenings this month so far . The grammar (not superselectives, it's in Bucks) in a wealthy district and a new the comp in Oxfordshire in a town that has more social benefits and lower income.

Blimey. The ethos, atmosphere and heads opening speech were poles apart. One talked about family inclusive culture and Yoga being on the school wide curriculum. Top down but whole mixed ability approach. The other focused on raising personal limits, not just meeting them and excelling in all areas not just academic. The grammar was not shy to say that grades do matter beyond the school gate and in the world of work. I thought the grammar head was honest about the challenges beyond the school gate. The comp head talked about SEN support (granted it's needed ) but it wasn't G&T SEN. She talked about vocational alliances with industry.

For a bright and academic child which is what I have - Yoga isn't a topic I want to see as a headline. And yes I know mindfulness has its place in calming behaviour but I'd rather see participation clubs like lit and debate, choir, orchestral opportunities and do yoga at the weekends if my dd really wanted it . The extra curricular activities, multiple languages and sport on offer at the grammar was music to my ears. Unfortunately the comp near me doesn't offer anything close. And that's a GOOD comp in a decent town.

I really want to be open minded. But I want to see everything on offer by the grammar in our local comprehensive but the latter simply doesn't offer what I feel an environment that a bright academic child can really flourish.

After attending both open evenings - I'm beginning to realise just what's available in the education establishment. Would you blame me if I strive for the grammar and all that it offers for my academic child??

I'll go to more open days. I'll be looking for the very best that both comps and grammars have to offer.

CookieDoughKid

Have you checked that you will get into any Bucks Grammars from where you are in Oxford?

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=46981&hilit=Oxford

www.elevenplusexams.co.uk/forum/11plus/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=46176

Yes. That's why I'm very willing to move. And the secondary modern is really really good too so happy with both choices in this part of Bucks! !

We don't have grammars in our area so the middle classes opt for selective and non selective independents and the faith school which selects by 7 years church attendance. People with money and ambition will always find a way to opt out of the comprehensive system in areas where it works less well. Our local comp refuses to set for subjects (the head explained this was so the less academic could learn from the more academic, which I didn't really buy). Also people go on their own experiences, so if a parent went to a good or rubbish school, they will choose/avoid that for their own children (where they have choice that is). I don't believe the future is in removing a top tier of students (the selection process by which is flawed and discriminatory) and placing them in a segregated school. But also comps have had a long time to hone a one model of working and haven't, hence you get successes and failures. I also don't think it's fair for the lower ability well behaved children to have their chances hampered by a high proportion of poorly behaved children. Although poorly behaved children don't get that way in a vacuum and we need to work much harder to support these children. Is keeping them in mainstream schooling the answer, with its decimated budgets? Probably not. I also see lots of children leaving with a smattering of poor grades, low self esteem and no career guidance. We need to move away from one academic system suits everyone as it doesn't appear to be suiting many at all. Does that need to happen in segregated schools? I think not (except maybe for the badly behaved although could be a referral unit on site) but people won't be persuaded that the current comprehensive system is brilliant as it's clearly not.

This secondary modern in bucks seems to get good results

www.hgss.co.uk/page/?title=School&pid=6

A group of very successful Headteachers has issued their own Green Paper. It's quite technical for the non-professional but has some very interesting ideas. I like the idea of a Quality Mark for all schools

headteachersroundtable.wordpress.com/alternative-green-paper-2016/

HPFA it's the new mixed co-ed school in Oxfordshire I was talking about . I am not sure I would be willing to be the first lot of pupils in a new school! But it did give the impression of being the complete opposite of a traditional academic school.

So because the head of a comprehensive school talked about SEN, Yoga and links with industry, you condemn it out of hand?

3amEternal But also comps have had a long time to hone a one model of working and haven't, hence you get successes and failures.

I'm not sure it's fair to say the comp. system doesn't work, surely we should be looking at why it doesn't work, looking for solutions and allowing those solutions to be implemented and then embeded. This is not happening. There are constant changes being made, teachers are becoming increasingly dissatisfied, funding is falling far short of the mark and the whole system is being stretched to the limits. How is this simply down to the business model being used?

Find it interesting that I know children who have been "failed" by school in all sectors- including at very highly regarded private schools. But it wouldn't cross my mind to say that meant that a particular type of school was failing. At the worst it would be that particular school. Or head. Or head of year. Or teacher.

BertrandRussell It will be interesting to hear why the sec.mod. is more preferable than the local comp.

I do wonder if a sec.mod. in the "wealthy district" is really what would normally be considered a comp. and whether a comp. in an area with "social benefits and lower income" is really what many would consider to be sec.mod.

Hi *Cookie^ I think the new school is going to have a seriously difficult job on its hands attracting parents -perhaps the Head was trying to offer something different? Not sure how effective a strategy that will be though.

I believe this secondary modern in Bucks is also very good www.waddesdonschool.com/ but I think you either have to live next door or be religious to get in?

But the current comp model isn't working everywhere, if it was you wouldn't have so many parents opting out or this knee jerk middle England pleasing proposal. I agree the current system should be worked on and am not calling for a return to segregation of the most able. But to be truly comprehensive there needs to be a radical rethink away from the one model we currently have operating in secondary schools.

Hasn't it already been said that it's quite difficult for a lot of Bucks children to get into the Grammars, with the places being taken by out of county children? With the end result that some of the Sec Mods have a good number of high achievers, so have effectively become Comprehensives?

I can easily imagine that Bucks CC's policy of only paying for transport to the nearest school would enhance this effect.

For society absolutely not. Got the kids that need it, absolutely not. For the head teacher who proposed it, not. And is it pitched at the right kind of pupil demographics for this comp? I'm thinking yep the headteacher is probably on right lines.

Do I think it right for my child? No. And having been educated at a top school (I went to Haberdasher's) and gone all the way to a career where my last employer staff comprised of 30% Oxbridge and the rest typically Russel group. I want the kind of job where my child CAN have the option of applying for if she so wanted. Do I think the comp can deliver it? I think it has a chance but why make things harder for my dd where she can excel and not be limited to just a handful of students (if that) in her class and lesson plans taught at the level of my dd? No, I want lessons to be further and challenging and not be limited because the lower abilities in the same class can't keep up.

I think people need to visit schools and see for themselves which I am doing before coming to any meaningful conclusion and for a bright academic child which mine is, there aren't very many strong arguments that the particular comp I went to see is right for her.

I do wonder if a sec.mod. in the "wealthy district" is really what would normally be considered a comp. and whether a comp. in an area with "social benefits and lower income" is really what many would consider to be sec.mod.

Secondary moderns in wealthy areas may well have a higher % of High Achievers than a comprehensive in a deprived area. In fact Holmer Green, the school referred to earlier gets a higher average GCSE grade for HAs than a few of the Kent and Lincs grammar schools.

Neither a comprehensive nor a selective system eliminates the socio-economic advantage in English education - when you have such an unequal society any education system is going to reflect that.

I agree HPFA and my last response was in reply to Bertrand.

Haven't rtft but I don't agree with grammar schools. It encourages parents to hire tutors to pass the 11+ which then raises the bar so that lots of parents who can't really afford it have to pay out or hope their child can pass without tutoring. It disadvantages children from poorer backgrounds as where there are children who would be on the borderline between secondary modern and grammar, tutored children are likely to end up taking places that brighter but less wealthy children would have got.